Latest news with #UKmilitary
Arab News
6 days ago
- Business
- Arab News
UK defense review points to an exposed West
Some of the statements made this week by politicians in the UK — along the lines of a 'new era of threats needs a new era of defense,' that we 'need to prepare for war in order to preserve peace' and that events in the world make it imperative the UK military moves to a 'war-fighting readiness' — were, to say the least, very alarming. The Strategic Defence Review published on Monday undoubtedly represents a systematic and detailed analysis of what Britain needs to do to address new uncertainties and evolving threats from Russia, nuclear risks and cyberattacks. But like other reviews, it is more an exercise in focusing the minds and pockets of the nation to ensure the UK is self-sufficient and self-reliant in a changing world. But that is only possible if the nation as a whole buys into it, which, despite the proximity of Russia's war in Ukraine and the rhetoric of the government this week, seemingly remains a long shot. The review, commissioned by Prime Minister Keir Starmer immediately after he took office last July, has the specter of US President Donald Trump written all over it. Britain and Europe are now having to take responsibility for their own security, while being at the mercy of an emboldened Russia that has brought war back to Europe after 80 years of relative peace. The delay of taking the UK's defense spending beyond 3 percent of gross domestic product, which will not happen until after the next general election, put a dent in the country's efforts to modernize its military, which has been starved of funding by years of austerity, economic mismanagement and the self-inflicted wound of Brexit. What the review does do, however, is present a table of critical threats faced by nations in the West, and not just the UK. They range from the obvious: Russia, which is seen as an 'immediate and pressing' threat, the 'sophisticated and persistent challenge' of China, and Iran and North Korea as mere disruptors. The less obvious and more complex threats mentioned include the climate emergency, the US' 'change in security priorities' and the potential for adversaries to sabotage undersea cables. Britain and Europe are now having to take responsibility for their own security, while being at the mercy of an emboldened Russia Mohamed Chebaro The war in Ukraine has no doubt helped focus the minds of defense experts, particularly as Ukrainian sovereignty greatly depends on the personal whims of tech tycoons such as Elon Musk for the continuous supply of satellite networks such as Starlink, not only to fly its drones but also to keep hospital operating theaters online. If anything, the review has exposed the slowness of successive governments in the UK and elsewhere in grasping the scale of the menace posed by hybrid forms of warfare, from malicious disinformation and troll farms that seek to influence and radicalize to cyberattacks, the weaponization of migrants and street gangs of underage, radicalized actors that aim to disrupt, distort, overwhelm or sabotage. What the UK's strategic review does not tell us is how modern Western societal models can be mobilized. Mobilizing industry in the private sector is easy, as all companies yearn to win lucrative government procurement contracts. But the mobilization of troops needs the state to meet the aspirations of its people and to convince youngsters of the sacrifices needed. The question is whether the government will be able to articulate the threats and convince a capitalist society of a doctrine of 'one for all and all for one,' which is nonexistent today. The strategic review's downfall could be any failure to persuade citizens that everyone must play their part to help keep the lights on and the internet working. Above all, they must believe in the national narrative as spelt out by the government in an era of fake news and competing narratives. This review has identified the threats of today, but they could change tomorrow. The challenge is whether the government is capable of building the systems needed to neutralize the threats of both today and tomorrow. What the UK's strategic review does not tell us is how modern Western societal models can be mobilized Mohamed Chebaro The easy part might be, as per the plan accepted by the government, for Britain to expand its fleet of attack submarines, which are nuclear-powered but carry conventional munitions. The government is to spend nearly £20 billion ($27 billion) by 2029 to pay for the replacement of the UK's nuclear warheads for its main nuclear fleet, as well as building six new munitions production factories, procuring up to 7,000 British-made long-range weapons and building a new communications system that is battlefield-capable. This is in addition to a new Cyber and Electromagnetic Command that will lead defensive and offensive cyber capabilities. This was prompted because the British military has faced more than 90,000 so-called sub-threshold attacks over the past two years. Of course, the difficult part is finding the money. But no less important is persuading the British youth to fight, which might be a difficult mountain to climb. Without them on board and recognizing the threat, the review will be doomed, especially as the UK's army is currently the smallest in Europe at 70,860, the fewest troops it has had since the Napoleonic era. Despite its military's limited size and the budget cuts of recent years, the UK still ranks as one of Europe's leading military powers and its troops have been actively defending NATO's eastern flank, while its navy maintains a presence in the Indo-Pacific. While the UK has acknowledged the mountain of security adversities piling up, its efforts to spend in order to defend itself risk pushing militarism to the brink and making any moves to return to multilateralism even more elusive in this changing world with its conflictive superpowers.
Times
02-06-2025
- Business
- Times
Labour's breezy slogans won't buy peace
It begins, as these set-piece unveilings always do, with a CGI carrier task force skimming across a PowerPoint ocean. Labour's gleaming strategic defence review pledges to make Britain 'ten times more lethal' — breezy sloganeering from a team that's spent twelve months turning bullets into bullet points, while the world's villains got on with firing the real thing. Sir Keir talks of 'war-fighting readiness'; the Treasury mutters, sotto voce: 'but not just yet, old chap'. Forgive us if we recognise the choreography. This review hasn't moved the dial: it's spun it in a full circle. Between us, we dragged our defence spending commitment to 2.5 per cent of GDP, only to watch Labour shelve the pledge, vanish into a year-long policy huddle, then re-emerge clutching a slightly dog-eared version of the plan we'd already put in motion. What's been dressed up as bold reform is, in truth, delay repackaged as discovery. The £6 billion complex weapons deal with MBDA? Already signed. The £1.5 billion for BAE munitions? Already funded. Advanced targeting and data networks? Green-lit. A dozen Aukus submarines? Part of the 28 ships and boats announced by us in the last parliament. But it's not just the reheated announcements — it's the structural fragility of what's now been offered. Defence reviews, like soufflés, tend to collapse without heat. They may launch fully funded, but are soon gnawed to bits by cost pressures. If this review meant business, the chancellor would have stamped '3% by 2030' — three by thirty — on the front page in block capitals. Instead, we're handed a blueprint that's hollow before it even hits the slipway. If the goal was to send a message to Moscow, it should have been written in Sheffield steel and Devonport apprenticeships, not in a carousel of retweeted infographics. And while ministers claim fiscal prudence, they're preparing to spend billions handing back the Chagos Islands — a territorial carve-up that will warm every autocrat's heart. Worse, if that bill comes out of the defence budget, then they're quite literally cutting weapons to fund weakness. Meanwhile, the world has changed gear. We've moved from postwar to prewar. Hypersonic missiles compress decision time to seconds. Quantum cyberattacks skip past timetables and Whitehall excuses. A government that waits for 'economic headroom' before making hard choices may find that deterrence isn't a direct debit you can pause. Either you pay up front, or you pay in blood. This week could, and should, have been different. Commit to three by thirty. Publish an equipment plan that sustains the drumbeat of conventional munitions. Double down on sovereign capacity while building out allied platforms from Aukus to GCAP. And recognise the truth every chancellor since Gladstone should have known: that deterrence is cheaper than war. Britain remains a nuclear-armed, cybercapable, globally deployed power. Our armed forces will do their duty. The question is whether His Majesty's Treasury will do theirs. Because in the end, it's simple: invest now and buy peace, or fumble down the back of the sofa when the storm has already broken. And until that choice is made — properly, publicly, and with conviction — the only thing 'ten times more lethal' in this review is the gap between the rhetoric and the reality.
Bloomberg
02-06-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Starmer Torn Between Trump and Labour on UK Defense Overhaul
By and Ellen Milligan Save Keir Starmer's revamp of defense policy intended to show both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin that Britain is serious about maintaining its role as a key power in Europe and NATO. But the prime minister's failure to explain how and when he'll find billions of pounds of extra spending to pay for the new weapons and personnel left him facing doubts about the UK's commitment to follow through. Starmer's plans must also survive rising pressure from Labour lawmakers, who want to prioritize domestic issues blowing back on the left-leaning party at the ballot box, such as controversial benefit cuts.
The Independent
02-06-2025
- Business
- The Independent
From a ‘more lethal' army to extra AI – what's in Starmer's strategic defence review?
Keir Starmer has unveiled the results of his 'root and branch' review of Britain's armed forces, with a pledge to make the UK 'battle-ready'. The prime minister has ordered up to a dozen new attack submarines, £15bn worth of nuclear warheads and thousands of new long-range weapons after the report concluded that the country should prepare for war. Here The Independent looks at what is in the prime minister's long-awaited strategic defence review, which warns of the threat posed by Russia and draws heavily on the lessons learned from the war in Ukraine. A 'more lethal' army and other 'immediate' steps Ministers have announced they will implement all 62 of the report's recommendations in full – but there will be a number of 'immediate' steps. These include creating a British Army that is 'ten times more lethal' with more personnel, long-range missiles and 'land-drone swarms'. As well as the new nuclear warheads and nuclear-powered attack submarines, ministers will also buy new autonomous vessels 'to patrol the North Atlantic and beyond', create a 'next generation' RAF with F-35s, upgraded Typhoons and 'autonomous fighters'. They will also spend £1bn on a homeland defence system to protect the UK from drones and missiles, use defence spending to drive economic growth and create a £400m defence innovation fund. Review backs spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence The PM is embroiled in a row over defence spending after he failed to make a firm commitment to hike it to 3 per cent of GDP by 2034. The defence review's authors say the government's 'ambition' to spend 3 per cent of GDP on defence is 'good news', but they add: 'However, as we live in such turbulent times it may be necessary to go faster'. It is understood that the report was written with the assumption that ministers would meet the 3 per cent target. Behind the scenes, Donald Trump has also been pressuring Sir Keir to hike Britain's defence spending, as the US president seeks to wean Europe off dependence on the US for military support. Alongside this, Donald Trump has been pressuring Sir Keir to hike Britain's defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP years earlier than planned, as the president seeks to wean Europe off dependence on the US for military support. The UK must 'move to war fighting readiness' One of the themes of the defence review is to make Britain war-ready, including protecting critical infrastructure in the event of a crisis. The SDR calls for a new Defence Readiness Bill, which would give ministers powers to 'respond effectively' in the event of an escalating conflict. Already ministers have announced they will respond to the call for 'always on munitions' by building up to six factories to create more weapons on British soil. Equipment and new technology 'will win' future conflicts In the foreword to the review, the defence secretary John Healey writes: "Whoever gets new technology into the hands of their armed forces the quickest will win.' Ministers have already announced plans for up to 12 new nuclear attack submarines, £15bn of investment in the nuclear warhead programme and 7,000 UK-built long-range weapons. At the weekend Mr Healey appeared to confirm he wants to purchase fighter jets capable of firing tactical nuclear weapons, a major pledge which would signal the UK recognised the world had entered a more dangerous era. The report also calls for greater use of AI as well as a new 'Digital Warfighter Group', which it says should not be held back by constraints on how much it can pay its staff, calling for 'appropriate recruitment and pay freedoms'. The SDR also says at least 10 per cent of the MoD equipment procurement budget should be spent on new technologies every year, and it urges ministers to remove red tape and other barriers to collaboration with industry partners. Already Mr Healey has announced a cyber command to counter a 'continual and intensifying' level of cyber warfare as well as plans to invest more than £1 billion into a new 'digital targeting web' to be set up by 2027, to better connect weapons systems and allow battlefield decisions targeting enemy threats to be made and executed faster. Starmer told to increase the size of the army The strategic defence review calls for a 'small" rise in the size of the regular army 'as a priority' – although it does add 'when funding allows'. On Sunday, however, the defence secretary said that would not happen before 2029 at the earliest. The other recommendations include that the UK should have a minimum of 100,000 soldiers - of which 73,000 are regulars. Ministers should hike the number of active reservists by 20 per cent, when funding allows, and new joiners should be offered shorter periods of services – including the MOD's planned 'gap years' – to aid recruitment. The government should cut costs by slashing the civil service defence workforce by 10 per cent and automating 20 per cent of HR, finance and commercial functions in the next three years 'as a minimum first step'. 'Red tape and excessive bureaucracy created by 'people' policy, process and assurance' should be removed, the report says. Ministers have also announced they are to spend an additional £1.5bn fixing up the military at home amid claims years of neglect have led to troops quitting.
Telegraph
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
France might prove to be Britain's nuclear saviour
With the return of war to the European continent, and international tensions at their highest in a generation, voices in the UK military and government are now reassessing nuclear posture and debating whether Britain needs tactical nuclear weapons again. It may be deeply disturbing that such considerations must be contemplated but giving a British prime minister more options in time of crisis is crucial. The forthcoming Strategic Defence Review may weigh in on the question but the solutions will ultimately come down to both time and money. The MoD's current long-range missile development programme is concentrating on conventional firepower, mainly to replace the subsonic Storm Shadow cruise missile with something faster and more survivable. There is no programme of record for a tactical nuclear missile and Britain's hypersonic missile development is still in its infancy when compared with other nations. The British strategic nuclear deterrent is based on four Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarines equipped with up to 16 Trident multi-warhead nuclear missiles. At least one submarine is on permanent ocean patrol at all times. Trident is the ultimate weapon envisaged to deter a massive attack on Britain. Its purpose is to dissuade because if it is used, it will likely be Armageddon for both attacker and defender. However, the UK no longer possesses an 'escalation ladder' to use the defence parlance. Following the end of the Cold War, in 1998 Britain retired all of its tactical nuclear weapons, mainly the freefall WE177 nuclear bomb. These 'low-yield' weapons were intended to blunt or stop a massive Soviet armoured invasion of the West if conventional means failed. Some are now beginning to ask if having all the nuclear eggs in one basket is wise. Most of the declared nuclear powers still maintain a way to deliver tactical nuclear weapons as a means to dissuade a hostile power from launching a less than strategic strike which would not justify massive retaliation. Whether this strategy would work has thankfully yet to be tested although war games conducted by the Pentagon in Washington appear to indicate that escalation to a complete nuclear warhead exchange is difficult to stop once the 'ladder' is climbed. But governments need options in time of crisis. Currently for Britain, in the event of a nuclear standoff, it will be all in or nothing. Russia and China can at short notice field hundreds of tactical nuclear weapons, affording them an extra rung on the ladder in the event of conflict. The US keeps a small stockpile of low-yield nuclear bombs at airbases in Germany and Italy but there are no guarantees these will not be withdrawn in future. Although it's believed that there may be a few low-yield Trident warheads in every submarine which could be launched short of a total nuclear exchange, doing this would reveal the submarine's location to the enemy – a less than optimal option. France however, never wavered in keeping all its options open. Its supersonic, ramjet powered ASMP missile, carried by Mirage and Rafale fighter jets, is a weapon with a range of some 600 kilometres and capable of delivering a single nuclear warhead of between 100 and 300 kilotons yield. The latest iteration of the weapon, the ASMPA-R has just entered service with the French Air Force and will hold the line until a next-generation, hypersonic missile enters service in another ten to fifteen years. If the UK decides it needs tactical nukes again, might cooperation with France be the way forward? Britain's current tactical missile systems are already heavily dependent on MBDA, the UK/France/Germany manufacturing consortium. Would the French be willing to offer up the MBDA supplied ASMPA-R as a weapon for the UK? Britain would need to provide its own small warhead (for which it has the proven expertise) and integration on the Eurofighter Typhoon would also be required (admittedly a complex task) but this would still likely be cheaper and faster than a cold-start development programme for an entirely new missile and then its subsequent integration and testing. Such cooperation would be a strong reaffirmation of the Lancaster House Treaties signed by Britain and France in 2010 and which already contain protocols on weapons development. Given the shifting geopolitical winds, European defence and stability may in the near future depend on a much deeper nuclear understanding between Britain and France. Whether the political will exists in either country remains to be seen.
